http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dawn



about a year ago a few of my moron friends told me about this it ensued in us spending the summer reseaching this subject,..so i was aware of this by the time the movie came out recently which my mormon friends and i watched ..

We felt this movie showed a fair portrayal of this massacre..it showed all sides of the story....you can undertand what motivated this ..it was a sad story for all involved ... the reason for the movie was to show how revenge and zealousness can lead to horrible treatment of each other..To raise awareness, thats how we saw it... .

the movie is a fictional account based on historical facts... the Moutanin meadows massacre is one of the most well documented masscare's in history....

there are many books written on this subject and can be found at any library ...

I am curious as to any thoughts on this...

Additional links:

September Dawn Response

The History Place, Review of "September Dawn" About www.historyplace.com

I severely doubt your research. There is no evidence that the LDS Church was behind this. The evidence is actually to the other side.

I also severely doubt you have "mormon friends" if they view September Dawn as anything approaching a " fair portrayal of this massacre..it showed all sides of the story....you can undertand what motivated this ..it was a sad story for all involved ... the reason for the movie was to show how revenge and zealousness can lead to horrible treatment of each other..To raise awareness, thats how we saw it.." As I can find no LDS or non-LDS support for these conclusions by anyone that has seen the film.

Edit: Also, it is not "based" on historical facts, the film itself claims to have been "Inspired by actual events." And the Mountain Meadows Massacre does not come close to being well documented, who was there to document it?

Bee , it is a fair portrayal and many are watching this... this is based on historical facts..

have you seen the movie??? You may be surprised at the mormons who do care about this...

I have seen it a few times and I feel its fair it shows all sides, also all of our rrsearch seems to be in this movie also....


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A9649C8B63

1. The book, authored by Latter-day Saint historians Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, will soon be published by Oxford University Press.

2. James H. Martineau, "The Mountain Meadow Catastrophy," July 23, 1907, Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

3. John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled: The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee (1877), 219.

4. Mormonism Unveiled, 220.

5. Andrew Jenson, notes of discussion with William Barton, Jan. 1892, Mountain Meadows file, Jenson Collection, Church Archives.

6. Brigham Young to Isaac C. Haight, Sept. 10, 1857, Letterpress Copybook 3:827–28, Brigham Young Office Files, Church Archives.

7. James H. Haslam, interview by S. A. Kenner, reported by Josiah Rogerson, Dec. 4, 1884, typescript, 11, in Josiah Rogerson, Transcripts and Notes of John D. Lee Trials, Church Archives.

I have seen the movie, and it is not an accurate portrayal.

Supra Sheri,

There are few major religions without at least one atrocity traceable to some group of it's members. It is in the nature of homo sapiens that they always forget their morals when they find some new depth they can fall to.

And you keep saying "moron" instead "mormon", freudian slip or deliberate? Do your mormon friends enjoy being called morons?

bad spelling..my apologys....


I am aware that history, especially relgious is very bloody...

I do feel based on research that this is fair and sound in its portrayal..

it is well know that brigham young commanded this act to be kept secret..to this day it is claimed he had nothing to do with this yet he ordered it...
Like i said i would not of known of this it was my Mormon friends who told me....

John E Lee's testimonys are on record... he is the one who gave the insights into what happened....He was brigham youngs adpted son) also he was executerd for his part in this....

also bagel is a renowned historian i feel he has done a very fair job..Not to mention the surviviing ancestors and the remains (bnes that have benn found)...

Bee, it is very historically accurate..why did the actors choose to do the movie Bee????

ROFL, that is a wonderful evidence as to the validity of most movies is it not.

I remember an old movie that dealt with this subject as well,but I can't remember the name of it,or who was in it.

No matter what though,much of the early history of the Mormons can still be within the realms of conjecture.Even though some would wish to refute the idea that Brigham Young knew (or had an active participation in the planning) of the Massacre,it is still possible that he had known full well what was going to happen.It's also possible that some of those who perpetrated this incident were a part of Brigham's "Destroying Angels",also called "Danites".It's also very possible that Joseph Smith was behind the formation of the Danites during the time spent in Missouri,or if not behind their creation...at least knew what they did and possibly even gave them orders.

We will probably never know the full story (and of who actually played the largest role),but nevertheless,it was a huge tragedy and became a scar upon the history of this nation.Unless more evidence comes forth that has been well hidden for the years since,we are only left with what evidence we do have and,of course,conjecture.

Conspiracy theories are all well and good, but all they are is theory. The LDS and others believe that our leadership had nothing to do with it, Anit-LDS typically claim we did. Fact is, like you say, there is not any conclusive evidence that such is or is not the case.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a conspiracy theory.It's ok though...no one ever wants to find out that their church leadership may have been guilty of such a brutal massacre.The LDS aren't the only ones to have some kind of mark against them.Just look at the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Still,there have been descendants of the survivors of the massacre,who joined with descendants of the early LDS,to form the Mountain Meadows Association.So,I do think there's some in the LDS who think there may have at least been involvement in the massacre by their ancestors,possibly even by the leadership.I think we'd really have to ask them to find out what they think on the matter.

How would any of the survivors have a clue as to whether of not LDS Church leadership orchestrated it? The only aspect I doubt and question is whether or not LDS Church leadership condoned it. At the time of the massacre we were, for all intents and purposes, at war with the US. I believe that there was probably some confusion over how these settlers were to be handled, and before an order to leave the company alone reached those in that area, the local leadership had made their decision and moved forward with it. I doubt either the Mormons that committed the atrocity nor the people in the company were completely without blaim in the situation.

We LDS have never denied that Mormons committed the Massacre, we only deny that the order came from the upper hierarchy of the Church.

The anti-Mormon types want to find out that the LDS Church leadership was guilty. Actual scholars admit the lack of evidence.

Conspiracy -
a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

Coincidentally I ran across this while doing research at work on the flora and fauna reported by early explorers of northern Utah. While it is not directly related to the mountain meadows massacre it does show the general state of mind the Mormons were in before this incident took place.

The link below is to an official US Army expedition report to the Great Salt Lake Valley authored by Capt. Howard Stansbury. The purpose of this expedition was to describe the geology, natural history, and mineral composition of its waters.

The page I am linking to describes a meeting between Capt. Stansbury and Brigham Young. Stansbury is trying to placate Young fears of the intended purpose of his expedition. I think this one page is sufficient enough to show a well educated and informed outsider’s perspective on Mormon persecution at that time.

LINK

I am by no means an expert nor have I done any personal research in to the mountain meadows massacre. And I do agree that what occurred at mountain meadows was an inexcusable atrocity. However I think I can say with confidence that the mountain meadows massacre pales in comparison to atrocities committed by other major religions. So what is the point of singling out this one incident and spotlighting it?

I personally wouldn’t put to much historical credence in a movie; they are notorious for embellishing historical events to make them more interesting and dramatic.

There is no doubt that the Mormons suffered incredible persecution because of their religious beliefs. And still do today to a lesser extent. They were tortured, murdered, and forced to flee from burning homes in the middle of the night. They were harassed and brutality routed from their settlements all the way from New York, to Missouri. The Mormons went to great lengths and sacrifice to find a place to live in peace, with the freedom to practice their religion as our constitution guarantees. What’s wrong with that?

I think this part of their history is largely ignored by most critics and should be taken into account when discussing this topic.

Ya never know.Some of the families involved may have passed word down through generations.

Here's the thing.During much of that era of U.S. history,there were a number of religious people who were considered "zealots" or "fanatics",not because of their staunch beliefs...but because of words and actions.There may be a good amount that we don't know about what went on in the minds of Young or Smith,yet some of their words and actions have given doubt amongst enough historians as to their innocence in some matters.

Too,the LDS of the past is a lot different from the LDS of the current day.In the early days of the LDS,Brigham Young supported the "Blood Atonement".The LDS doesn't follow that path these days,does it? No,it's a lot more sweet & cuddly these days.So,just because one thinks they may know everything about their religion,or how much they want to believe that the founders of the religion weren't the violent type,or how little "evidence" there is concerning a specific incident...doesn't mean much in the long run.The historical record will still speak for itself and give historians a reasonable idea of what the truth may be,even if it's just from a few lines here & there from a speech given by one man.

And believe me,I know what conspiracy theories are.I've been known to disect them as much as I do to other subjects.

...

Now,I think we've derailed this topic long enough...since the original post was about a movie,which I haven't seen yet...but the topic of which reminded me of another movie dealing with the same subject.I just wish I could remember the name of it.

Its pretty sad when the most Damning evidence the screen writer can come up with is a fabricated line from a 21st Century message Board 100+ years after the fact.

Most objective Historians agree that BY had nothing to do with it and infact tried to stop it from happening. We have an onion skin copy of the letter he sent with the mail carrier. The letter got there a day late. Theres no doubt that local leaders screwed up big time. But can you blame them? They get word that the US governement with their newly designed Gatlan Gun was coming to forcibly remove them from their land and here comes this party marching through town saying they where going to come back with the army and help kill the Mormons again, boasting they had the Gun that was used to kill Ole' Joe. While nothing will excuse the terrible tragedy, their is quite enough blame to go around. But lets put that blame where it really belongs.

PS. Blood atonement was for Mormons who broke their convenants. There isnt a credible historian alive that claims a "blood Atonements" ever took place. "The wage of sin is death" - Paul Romans

I would not call this a conspiracy theory either or conjecter , they have found skulls of the dead... , Its not something that LDS would want people to know , it was very tragic for all involved...
including LDS....this was revenge for Joesph Smiths murder that took place in missouri...Except it was on people who knew nothing of this....... ...


I do feel the evidence points very strongly BY was involved nothing went on in Utah at that time that BY didn't know about.. bascially BY was in a war with the gov'rment at the time... We are talking 1857 the early days of america..... The church was and still remains very heiriarchial in implementation, few would be doing their own thing...

to this day mormons beleive the bishop is a direct conduit for god.....many things are kept secret...


also they are very protective of Brigham young....
for the longevity of mormonism I assume....

this is about as accurate as one can get.... John E Lee ( brigham youngs adopted son) has left behind testimony to what happened...he was also executed for his part in this....this is easily found....

We have never denied the fact that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened. We have never denied that Mormons took part in the massacre. We have only ever denied that the leadership of the Church ordered and condoned the massacre. Please stop lying about the facts.

Joseph Smith Jr. died in 1844. The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened in 1857. Quit trying to find some tie between the two events, there is none.

The LDS were not violent and did not try to kill people because of Joseph Smith Jr's killing. If you knew anything about the history of the pioneer treks across what would become the U.S. you would know better our typical behavior with regard to non-LDS people.
Yes, we, the Mormons, were basically at war with the US at the time, we never denied that either. Why do you think a low level Church leader and a group of Mormons could have made the mistake they did?
You show even more lack of knowledge concerning the religion.

Yes, a testimony he gave immediately prior to his execution. Some time following his excommunication.


You are obviously not interested in the truth nor the facts of the matter. I hope that others recognize your fanaticism in regard to this subject.

I assume you side with all the non-US groups who claim similar atrocities were perpetrated by the US with full and complete knowledge of our government leadership all the way up to the President and that the President personally orders such actions. I am surprised that you have not left the US due to its horrible, digusting, abominable treatment of other nations and peoples, including rape, torture, and other unspeakable acts. Your claims are the exact same as these claims in nature, with the same level of evidence to the facts.

John Whitmer Historical Journal, William D. Morain, M.D. When Sigmund Freud and former Ambassador William Bullitt penned their unflattering psychobiography of Woodrow Wilson, even the casual reader could surmise that the smoke rising from its pages was not emanating from "just a cigar." It was instead billowing from a lethal bit of ordinance designed to blacken the face of the deceased President they so despised.

Fortunately, such a criticism cannot be leveled at Robert D. Anderson, MD, for his remarkable volume, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. Anderson, a senior psychiatrist, has adopted the purely naturalistic approach of the psychoanalytic school in producing a consistent and persuasive case that Smith suffered from narcissistic personality disorder. Drawing from the comprehensive record of the New Mormon History, Anderson presents a nuance and sensitive view of Smith and his family in a prose style that both professional and non-professional can readily follow. One senses throughout that the clarity of analysis and directness of style reflects the gentle artistry of a skillful therapist.

Rather than attempting a birth-to-death chronology, Anderson has chosen to limit his inquiry to a review of Smith's formative years and The Book of Mormon itself. It is Anderson's thesis that the Book of Mormon is a literal autobiography, rapidly dictated in the "spontaneous free association" characteristic of a patient on the psychoanalyst's couch. But while others have merely recognized in Smith's book a few isolated themes that appear to parallel those in the author's real-life milieu,
to continue reading click the link....

http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/inside.htm

Bee, Sticking to the data I have presented this fairly, asking what do you think illustrates that....... honestly, I can see how this could of happened....




I feel this book was very fair in bringing a sensitivity to Joesph Smith, to better understand him.....


In our research of this both of my mormon ( best) friends are PH.D's in psychology, this is one of the books we looked at also to get a understandng of Joesph Smith..

I feel this is a sound piece of research....


what do you think ???

I think that the text you cite is extremely speculative, and not much more than that. Also, given Robert's propensity to label most historical religious as narcisistic, I do not believe his diagnosis is anything other than personal bias. Joseph Smith is not the only historical religious figure he has stated as narcisistic. It is more speculation and personal bias than it is research.

I have a Ph.D. in Psychology as well, although my school of thought is Learning Theory. I have very little respect for Psychoanalysis and believe it is as credible as calling a psychic on the phone. I have no respect for Freud, and very little of his work has be shown to be scientifically valid.

The evidence does not support the idea that Joseph Smith displayed sufficient symptoms to label him as narcissistic.

I believe that given the length and structure of the volume that is the Book of Mormon, it would be easy to find parralels to most anyone's life, I am sure if I wanted to I could find them with my own.

I have a brother with a fourth son named Nephi. My 4th younger brother believes he is religiously more knowledgable and in a more pious position than I. I once decided to cross a local pond in a boat and camp on the other side. When I was 11 we moved south. These are the type of similarities Robert uses as evidence. Perhaps Joseph Smith Jr. was a psychic and was channeling my 21st century self into writing my biography.

Finally, what does this have to do with this thread?

Several young children were taken captive by Indians. The Mormons let it happen, assuming the children were too young to remember. Years later they gave eye-witness accounts.
Doug

My wife's great-grandmother became a Mormon, then split with the church over the role of women. That split also split the family. One hundred thirty years later, the two sides still don't speak to each other, even though they both live in the same small town. The family was not involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, being part of a group that settled north of Salt Lake. Indeed, a lot of words have been passed down from those days. Doug

That is true, I doubt the accuracy of such from years later as to specifics, though. I don't believe their accounts could be enough for the event to be considered "well documented." My main intent of that comment was to the depth that Sheri seems to think. They couldn't have documented any evidence of the LDS Church leadership orchestrated the event. Also, given what we know of priming and implanting of memories, we must question the account from the perspective of possible influencing of memory by those who wanted to hear one thing or another. I wasn't disparaging the event. I was merely stating that it was not well documented, not that it was not documented.

Bee:
I once found a reference in a book written in the 1880s (Williams Brothers History of Ashtabula County, Ohio) that a man named Solomon Spaulding who was a resident of Ashtabula, wrote a novel which he attempted to have published, but as he lacked the funds, the manuscript sat in a printshop in Pittsburg for many years. Spaulding showed a copy of his book to his forgeman, Henry Lake. Years later, the printshop was sold and the manuscript was published without Spaulding's permission as the Book of Mormon.

Comments?
Doug

I guess all we're left with here is: there's no proof that the church leadership was involved. On the other hand, there's no proof they weren't. That, of course, gets into standards of proof. Let's not go down that road. Doug

Bee, fair enough I personally do not exclude any approach to the human mind....I can't say I have no respect for this or that. all paths have value, whether we understand them or not.... I see flaws with Freud, yet I feel he opened a door ... all pieces contribute to the whole...

you stated that MMM was not revenge based, one had nothing to do with another ... Yet

Smith's state of mind is imperative to the mormon philosophy in implementation in those days ...including the unfolding events that lead to this tragedy .....that is why I brought it in....


Beleifs become behavior....Hitler,Jim Jones, Karesh, Ted Bundy, Sadaam etc.... Now I'll be the first to agree that conjecture plays a part also...

yet again its well documented that Smith was grandiose and the snake oil salesman of his day, which seemed to bring him alot of trouble in New York and Missouri etc..., he isnlt the first one to start his own religion, write his own bible... he wonlt be the last.......... Scientology is a great case in point...L. Ron Hubbard himself often joked about this... ...




Are you interested in exploring this..I have stated time and time again based on documented evidence a plethroa of it really... This is considered one of the most historically accurate events in history....Of course I leave room for fairness...

.
I am open to reading what you have...

Sheri,
I know you are a king and caring person, but you need to know that the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a very sensitive topic in Mormon Country. It is very difficult for people to talk about to this day. A lot of people believe it was ordered by the Mormon church as revenge for the killing of Joseph Smith. The Mormon church will say it wasn't. Who to believe?

This topic could easily escalate into something nasty. Let's all try to keep our heads. Doug

Philastus Hurlbut attempted to prove the Spaulding manuscript held parallels to the Book of Mormon, but upon inspection found that the parallels were nonexistent (Winchester, 17). Hurlbut asserted that another manuscript existed, but there is no evidence of such (Howe, 290.)

Benjamin Winchester
(1817-1901)
Origin of the Spaulding Story
(Philadelphia: Brown, Bicking & Guilpert 1840)

Eber Dudley Howe (1798-1885)
Mormonism Unvailed
(Painesville Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834)

Another check of the manuscript, in 1884:
New York Observer

I believe atoms, when given caffiene, become little people that like polka. Freud did nothing of value, past what I did with the preceding sentence. Fiction has value, but that does not make it in any manner science.
Actually no, Smith's state of mind had nothing to do with Mormon philosophy in implementation in those days. If anything, the idea that Brigham Young influenced JS while they were aquainted in this life would be more accurate. And again Smith had been dead for how long?
Christ, the Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, Buddha, Martin Luther King etc.
Please show evidence that JS was convicted of anything and that this is more than a baseless accusation.
Please prove that it is considered one of the most historically accurate events in history (I assume you mean as far as documentation.) If it is then historians must be horrid in their documenting of history.

Prove your statements as I do not believe you can. You have a lot of speculation and no evidence. Even the book review you use is merely an advertisement and not official in any manner. You keep acting like you have evidence, but you haven't shown any, you only request evidence from others.

The first detailed and comprehensive work using modern historical methods was Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1950 by Juanita Brooks, a Mormon scholar who lived near the area in southern Utah. Brooks found no evidence of direct involvement by Brigham Young, but charged him with obstructing the investigation and for provoking the attack through his rhetoric.Wikipedia (I don't like using wikipedia, but don't feel like doing a lit-review on the subject either, so this will be good enough for me at the moment.)

Now, given that 9 indictments were levied in 1974, following a government investigation. If there were ample evidence to LDS Church Leadership playing a role, particularly Brigham Young, as you claim, why were no indictments made against them? The reason is that the evidence did not and does not support such.

doug, two of my closest friends are mormons, they are awesome folks and yes I am a kind and caring person thats why they felt this is something they could share with me...that i would be compassionate..... i have said they told me about MMM, i really had no idea...the amount of concern by them touched me profoundly... ( I understand tragedy my sister was murdered and our family got through this and never once did we question forgiveness, we felt it was an opp. to excersise compassion and did.......)


....Bee has been very gracious, as have i and all the posters.. I am asking as i am open to all sides esepcially Bee's..

Many share your position on Freud, Bee... I have no issue with your stance ... thanks for your comments...


Bee, I beleive you used wiki, i am not a fan of google for research, i am more of a source type or library etc... yet its what you include so i look at it ...

I included in an earlier post a few of the books we read, the movie just came out, i knew all of this before and agreed with you it was a fictionalized acount of a historical event which stuck very close to documented fact IMO

I was not expecting it to be factual or how much pains were taken to use actual dialog and testimony and how much care was put into having a heart for the mormon community....

Gosh, nothing like a mormon telling you what to read etc....I meet with my friends once a week and will refresh on this for this thread.........

both are also phd's as we already established only one very loosely shares your pov on Freud, the other is from this school of thought ( this person is 78 years old so that is why the other is a bit younger in mid 60's, things change alot in this field....) Even psychoanalism has changed so much we have another member of our group who shares how much the field has grown and changed. even in the last 15 years it has gotten away from Freud and Jung.....sort of how Skinner is being out grown ,yet he also opened a door....(.in favor of attachment theory...)


don't you start at the bare bones of mormonism to get a feel for the entire philosphy??? one looks at all of it they may not agree, or understand.

Umm, I said that, thx for reading the post.

The movie may have been accurate as far as the event itself, but the surrounding theology and supposed sermons used by Brigham Young and others are way off, they are quoted out of context and are not put across as they should be.

Lol, I do not want to get into a debate on psychology. I am Skinnerian or perhaps the term they would use for me is Radical, I am unsure, ask your friends about that and perhaps you will have a better understanding of my position on Freud and the rest. Cognitive Psychology is valuable regardless the fiction they use to explain what they are doing, but Freud was not valuable in any manner aside from being interesting fantasy.

I guess you did cite some books. I am not attacking that the event occurred, only that Brigham Young and those near him in authority were a part of it. John D. Lee can only be considered hearsay and in no way credible as such. The others I have not had the opportunity to read yet. The issue I have is that, according to the foremost historians, the Church's leadership's involvement is still questioned, yet you seem to claim otherwise. There is no absolute evidence either way. I will not state that they were absolutely not a part of it, and I will not leave you alone to claim that they were. Either of those statements may be false from the evidence. I do not believe they were a part of it due to my understanding of our doctrines, our history and our traditions.

I still doubt your "Mormon friends" exist, yet if they do, they do not know our history as well as you claim. Any Mormon would not accept that the Church played the role you suggest without more evidence than exists.

Thanks. That's a piece of information I didn't have. Doug

Bee, your post is very fair... I sort of gathered you were Skinner LOL...I agree behaviorism has played a big role in society...

I find skinnerism very interesting...


You may be surprised Bee, their are Mormon's who have a pov that works for them, it has nothing to do with the church...... My freinds also don't vote and don't agree with Mitt Romney's views. as mormons...



That is why this is so interesting...

How can John E Lee be hearsay when testimony exists from him about MMM...

there is also another book called leaving the saints by Martha Beck..Its about mormonism... i read it and at first was aghast at the sexual abuse by her father, but i decided to look into the method used to elicit this information... It is not excepted in any valid Physcological community...

Yet alot of data she gave about being mormon is very accurate, my point is do you think BY couldn't of known of this and how..what have you read that has lead you to this i'd be interested ...

.by now you should see i am not intending harm i am honestly questionng this.....Reason being mormons are the most NON violent people and actually have views that i find of value....they donot seek to be exclusive they embrace community, I as a non mormon could go to the local bishops house and be embraced....




Now you said no mormon would think diffenrt then the church, yet this is not true as i know a few that do..

At this point I think you do not understand much of anything concerning the LDS religion. Mitt Romney has nothing to do with the LDS Church, he just happens to be LDS (a Mormon.) I will most likely be voting for Obama, politics is not the Church. Brigham Young, at a General Conference once divided the Church into Democrats and Republicans because the Church was too one sided, and we needed more diversity in our political stance. Everything outside of religion is wholly up to the individual. Even our doctrine is up to the individual. From the time of Joseph Smith on, the counsel of the Church is pray over every statement made to verify for oneself with God concerning its validity. This is not something new. You will be deciding your position with regards to the Church, but it is wholly up to the individual.
It is hearsay in that John E. Lee did not have firsthand information concerning Brigham Young's involvement. John E. Lee only had what he had heard from others and his belief to the fact. His testimony is not hearsay as to what he himself did and witnessed, it is hearsay as to events and actions he did not witness. John E. Lee had no firsthand knowledge of Brigham Young's involvement, he just believed that what he was doing was condoned.
You jump around more than a cricket.

Do I think BY couldn't of known of what and how? The book you comment on here? Or on the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

If the Massacre: if he did I do not believe he ordered it in cold blood, but probably believing that the group was a military operation of some type. Brigham Young's character was not such that I can see him ordering the operation knowing exactly what the group was. But, who knows, if he did order it, knowing all the details, the Bible has evidence of such occurring. I was not in the position, so I cannot judge their actions.

If the book: I do not see how the sexual abuse has anything to do with the LDS faith, unless you are claiming we sanction such, in which case I will discontinue speaking with you as this would be beyond the pale.
Yet you claim that we, as a people, have changed drastically since Brigham Young? Nothing in our doctrine and system of belief has changed since Joseph Smith. You claim we are something here, yet you do not apply your knowledge of us to the situation of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You are illogical in your statements. Either we are bloodthirsty and capable of cold bloodedly commiting Mountain Meadows Massacre or we are not, make up your mind. It occurred, did it occur in the manner portrayed in September Dawn? I doubt it. You seem to think I deny facts concerning the event, I do not. The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened, Mormons were involved. Were there sermons as are shown in September Dawn? No. Did Mormons behave as we are portrayed in September Dawn? No. Did Mormons participate in the atrocity? Yes. Did the LDS Church leadership order the massacre? Unknown.

A Bishop is not very high up in the LDS hierarchy of authority, he has at least 90 men above him as far as level of authority, even in 1857. A Bishop presides over a small congregation, but he does not speak for the Church. I believe your lack of understanding as to his position may be part of your error in your claims. You simply do not understand the religion.
I did not say what you claim here. My statement was this:
I would appreciate it if you would not misquote me.

I didn't know that, the voting etc.. thanks for the info...I am not a mormon Bee...that is why I am asking you..



I do not think mormons are bloodthirsty,now you are misquoting me ...Most religions have a bloody past...



I don't vote but if i did obama or hilary would work for me...

I am simply gathering data, have made no judgements nor intend too...I am not inferring that sexual abuse is condoned, I am very curious and thanks for following my cricket mind LOL....

Not to split hairs Bee, but John E.Lee was BY's adopted son.....he thought very highly of him ..or so it seemed...
i am not making any claims I am researching this ...
Bee thank you for your responses, they have been very helpful....


i have just gotten from my freinds 3 books..

Under the banner of heaven about the lafferty brothers(mormons) ...krakauer...

No man knows my history the story of john smith by the historian Fawn Brodie....

Taylors, Nightfall at Nauvoo..

Are you familiar with these books????

I have not read them yet ..will start on them ASAP..

Relation does not equate to evidence. John E. Lee had no knowldege that Brigham Young or other high authority Church leadership had any knowledge of the event prior to its occurence. He may have assumed such, but he did not know. He never witnessed anything that can be taken as evidence.

As to the bloodthirsty comment, I wasn't quoting you, that is the impression September Dawn gives and you have stated it was factual.
Under the Banner of Heaven is about the Lafferty brothers, true. The Lafferty brothers were not LDS/Mormon, they were members of an extreme fundamentalist group that had split from the Church.

I have not read Brodie's book, but I knew her and her family. I must question using her as an unbiased source. Brodie left the LDS Church due to family discord that she blamed on the Church. While I can't state this necessarily impacted her work, it is the opposite of reading a book by a faithful member and must be considered probably biased.

I have not read Nightfall at Nauvoo, but Taylor is a good author and I have heard this is a good novel.

Have you read any of our books? If you want to learn about our beliefs and such, go to the source. Yes, they will be our literature, and they will be pro-Mormon, but so far your sources are nearly all non-LDS and unfriendly to the Church. It is one thing to be unbiased and another to be biased away from the subject you are researching. To learn about our beliefs, I would suggest these for a start:

• The Book of Mormon
• The Bible (We prefer the King James Version)
• Jesus the Christ - Talmage
• Mormon Doctrine - McConkie
• The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother - Lucy Mack Smith
• History of the Church - Joseph Smith

I have read the bible of course , the others I have not...I will though...

so far after reading half of Banner under heaven it is also very fair it is going into all sides of FLDS and LDS ... the most important point is that much of the mormon history has been documented the age of the prinitng press)



The huge issue was polygamy in those days ..it also shows IMO that joesph smith started LDS with good intentions and why it got off the ground to begin with. IMO of course...He was charged with fraud in palmyra New york and fled to avoid prosecution....he was charged with Treason in missouri and agian fled ...

Bee,
I am curious though at what point did LDS remove polygamy ????


SD is an intense moive I agree, yet it also showed that the wagon train bieng christian were going to California to clean it up the corruption with their ideas..it was very common in those days to use threats violence and death to get others to do what you wanted...to varying degrees this was the way at that time....


it is still prevalent today to use violence as a means of conflcit resolution, few use anger in a way that it is intended...which is to heal and make a win win for all invovled...


As I have said i can see both sides....

Are you referencing the Bank incident? And as far as Missouri is concerned I do not believe one could rely on anything from Missouri as being unbiased in regards to the LDS Church, its juditial and population's histories are too anti-LDS to trust any documentation there.
September 24th, 1890. This suspended any sealings (LDS Marriage) of multiple wives. Existing families were not broken up. The Prophet that suspended the practice was Wilford Woodruff, the fourth Prophet.

Are you saying that that wagon train may have used threats violence and death to get others to do what they wanted? If so, perhaps I have misjudged your posts somewhat.

I am saying you can't rule it out..the dialoge between the christian girl and the moroon boy in the film gives alot of insight IMO Bee..

I watched SD 4 times the first time is so intense, one can form a bias to quick....

I do see that missouri and Smith mutaully disliked each other..I agree with you this has to be stated in ones awareness whilst reading this ....



the banner of heaven is jsut putting it all in all sides..and its obvious Joesph smith felt persecuted... he seemed to go to great pains to hide the fact he was practing polygamy...any input on this???

I do not believe the film is accurate past the fact that the massacre occurred, everything else is fiction layered over fact.
The practice was not widespread among the LDS, even at its peak there were only 13% of the LDS population practicing plural marriage. Also, the marriage ceremonies were private and limited much as our marriages are now. They were not secret, albeit perhaps they did not meet with the same amount of public observance as non-LDS marriages would. Given the threats on JS's life, I believe that if attempts to hide the marriages occurred, the hiding was more out of protection of those involved than it was out of secrecy.

Bee, during BY's term until his death polygamy was practiced and BY felt that gods law superceded the gov'ts law....BY came out himself and admitted to multiple wifes. ( not anticipating the backlash from the gov't) he was also governer of Utah and he had control of all the courts etc at this time..
the pressure of stopping polygamy was great...Federal agents trying ot enforce this showed up murdered etc....

The evidence is there, each historian who has written of this has meticulously and painstakingly researched this incident..Juanita Brooks, Will bagley,Fawn Brodie and BY's own bragging that the mormons were the smoothest liars in that time....

BY was entangled with the gov't and its on record all of this...You mentioned somewhere that this masscre was done by FDLS members not BY LDS but it is very clear that FLDS was BY and his members...

the pressure became unbearable the gov't wasn't letting up , LDS had no choice but to surrender to washington and in the famous Woodruff Manifesto stating his cooperation...as you cited

also the blood thirsty aspect I'd like to relook at this .... BY was upset with the outcome of the trial the the people vs. levi Williams alll nine people who were connected to the killing to joesph smith( were found not guilty) BY ordered the church to decree an "oath of vengence," which was one of the churchs most sacred rituals...

the oath of vengence went as such and was required by all mormons to recite over and over...


"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth generation."


The oath remained a part of the temple rituals until February 15, 1927.

I am almost finished with UBof heaven and have 2 more books to read in this run....now i am speculating but it seems the saints were a loyal bunch willing to do anything for BY...

Will bagley was the historian consulted on the movie SD the author of the blood prophet...have you read this?


what do you think?
Bee: One more thing it is clear to me that LDS reflects the revelations of the president at the time of ofice... that LDS has made alot of changes over time..I want to be real clear on that , that I am simply looking at this for the time it represented...

I am finished speaking with you. You have shown by your posts that you are not interested in listening to anything I have to say, and you think you know everything about my religion already. Go ahead and slander my beliefs more if you wish, I will no longer attempt to correct you. I wish you well with your life. Goodbye Sheri.

Bee, why not hang in there? Some of us are reading what you're saying and would like the opinion of a Mormon.

My wife's branch of the family left the church long ago. There is still animosity between the two sides, even after four generations. I have never been a Mormon, so what I see comes almost-completely from the anti-Mormon point of view. This is an opportunity to set the record straight.

Like Sheri, I find some of your explanations inadequate. You're trying to explain things to us as if we're Mormons and have the same cultural background as you. Maybe if I did, you could use a sort of verbal shorthand to explain things to me, but because I don't, a lot of what you're saying goes right over my head. You're abandoning the field without a fight; it makes you look like you don't have answers.
Doug

Bee, I am so sorry you feel you are being bashed, I am referencing documented evidence, but made it very clear that I was open to your POV as a mormon also ..

Indeed I am not a mormon, yet i investigate everything in just the fashion I am on here...

I think Doug said it the best I appreciate your input, yet there are some inconsitencys, I am addressing them to hear your POV..



Also Doug, said there are readers reading this...I have no interest in belong right or wrong or changing minds I am seeking to understand your side also... I have stated this repeatedly...I also have included your suggestions in my research and have tow mormon friends who I consult regularly ...

yet, in the event you opt out I can't thank you enough for your time and input...you have been very gracious....

I can explain things to you if you would like. I felt I was only discussing the topic with Sheri.

Sheri has continued to claim that various aspects are fact when such is not the case.

There is not sufficient evidence to implicate the LDS leadership above the Bishop in the Massacre. I cannot rebut the statement aside from stating that there is insufficient evidence for such, and stating that such a concept goes against what I know of the men in question. This is refuted with the fact that I am biased, yet Sheri only uses sources that are "anti-LDS" due to their leaving the Church or sources that are not a portrayal of the LDS church (e.g. Under the Banner of Heaven.)

I do not deny that the event occurred, nor do I believe that it can be claimed I have. The Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred and Mormons played a part in every aspect of it.

September Dawn uses various sermons in the production that are taken out of context or incomplete. one of the sermons it has Brigham Young giving was given by Joseph Smith, and even if Brigham Young had given the Sermon, the portion used was incomplete.

Blood atonement is a concept that only applies to LDS that have received their endowments. It does not have anything to do with non-LDS individuals, and does not condone violence against another person by any man or woman. I cannot discuss it at length because we hold the temple ceremonies as sacred and do not discuss them in a depth that would explain it to someone with little understanding of the LDS faith, which Sheri is. The temple ceremonies are not spoken of, the amount of the ceremony that Sheri posted is a severe offense to my beliefs and shows absolutely no respect for my religion, my beliefs, or myself. I considered leaving the forum entirely due to the fact that she posted them. Also, the portion she quoted is not correct, it has wording that is not, and was not, ever a part of the temple ceremony. It is close enough to offend though.

If you have questions, I will respond. I am unsure about which explanations you find innadequate, which are you referencing? If you will present them I will attempt to respond, I will not continue with Sheri though. On further consideration, I decided you were right and that I should continue.

Also, if there is a way to report that post, I would like to request that the portion concerning our temple ceremony be removed as it is a severe offense to any LDS indiviual.

Bee, this oath is in every book written about mormons and all over the internet... I found it online, after reading it in several published books....Its also in the SD movie....

It is only in every book, movie or website written about Mormons that has no respect for Mormons. If a book, movie or website includes anything concerning our temple ceremonies, it is not interested in the "truth about Mormons", it is absolutely about disrespect for Mormons. No true scholar of LDS beliefs would present anything from our temple ceremonies in their work, they would respect our beliefs enough to refrain from this.

Also, the quote you provided is not, nor was it ever accurate. The temple ceremony is entirely concerning the individual, it does not reference others aside from the spouse if the spouse is also endowed. It does not, nor has it ever, referenced teaching one's children or vengeance on others.

thanks for your input...
Bee, so much of this data is on record... this subject has been written about by noted historians trying to be as accurate as possible of course there is room for misunderstandings etc...

it has been taken literal on a few occassions..




Apparently the oath has been misinterpreted by more than one F/LDS member.. the Lafferty boys are a case in point ......


The oath also has a date that says that it is no longer understood in this manner..........
I also included for your sake that it was a reflection of the times, that each president of the mormons has revelations and changes things..correct????

the books referenced do not hate mormons Bee...

It wasn't misinterpretted. The LDS Church, past or present, has never released the temple ceremony to the public. It was mistated, not misinterpretted. The FLDS Church is not the LDS Church, and its members are not, and while they do not beloeng to the LDS Church weill never be, granted access to LDS temples.

If they cite the temple ceremony, in the manner you have stated, they may not hate Mormons, but they do severely disrespect our beliefs.

Some statements on the topics on hand:

Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven

American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857
by Sally Denton

Fundamentalist Mormons

Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction

And again The Mountain Meadows Massacre

I will take a look at those links Bee...

The banner of heaven book I just finished, I read it all it is very specific on FLDS it in no way ties LDS to it it actaully makes clear distinctions..

it is very fair and very clear that this is not main stream mormon views.. these boys were excommunicated from LDS..over and over it says this...

truthfully i would be the first to say it was unfair if it was... it gives all the data and then you decide ...this is how one comes to thier own pov.... i look at it all the good, the bad the ugly, the favorable the unfavorabe then i decide what it means to me, I do not take anothers word or pov on anything .....
i have a high level of discernment skill, i do not engage you in this to have you defend yourself or the church , i am seeking an awareness on this topic and i am fair and will be fair and have been....i deeply appreciate your input but i will decide for myself what it means to me....


It also is said over and over that FLDS adheres to the views of Joesph Smith and how it was interpreted/implemented in those days ..LDS takes a different stance nowadays after polygamy ended........



Last night a 60 minutes was on an interview with Pres. Hinkley before he died I watched it and when he was asked about these things he said this is in the past we are moving forward. that one had to understand that those were different times....

the links you provided said the same stuff I am reading and that was in the movie SD.....

This is one tragedy that is being fair IMO...I would be tje first to speak up if it wasn't....